Wikihow "how to convert an atheist"

[Excited Penguin]

Well, it's a much more reasonable approach than most. It seems to acknowledge its own shortcomings so much that I wonder if it's a parody!

I have a much quicker guide:

How to convert an atheist:

1) Give birth.
2) Indocrinate your child. Keep it as insulated as possible from the outside world, and for god's sake make sure they're programmed before the age of 7.
3) Congrats?

I'm thinking the same thing. This is clearly a parody. Or else, it was written by an atheist. In any case, this article, if the OP's distillation of it is to be trusted, is far more likely to deconvert than convert.

[downbeatplumb]

How to convert an atheist, prove beyond all doubt with scientifically verifiable evidence that there is a god and indeed it is the god that "you" believe in.

Good luck with that.

[abaris]

What?    Talking to me?  I saw a reference on Pinterest - read the article, thought people here might like to see it.

Yah, because you were one of the select few taking him seriously in his newest shit and run about converting to atheism.

[Minimalist]

"don't debate the specifics of the Bible", "don't discuss Biblical fallacies", "don't talk about Eternal Punishment" - - just talk about how happy your faith has made you.

IOW, what scumbag marketers call "the old bait and switch!"

[Red_Wind]

"To convert someone, tell him or her to consider accepting absolutes like "good" and "evil." Your friend may have disbelief, doubts and questions, and so it may take months or years of kindness to convince them"

One thing i learned from going to church is that almost everyone wears a fake smile.

[drfuzzy]

What?    Talking to me?  I saw a reference on Pinterest - read the article, thought people here might like to see it.

Yah, because you were one of the select few taking him seriously in his newest shit and run about converting to atheism.

Oh, now I get it.  Ok.  
Yeah, I probably should have just posted another "don't feed the troll" meme.  

[drfuzzy]

Well, it's a much more reasonable approach than most. It seems to acknowledge its own shortcomings so much that I wonder if it's a parody!

I have a much quicker guide:

How to convert an atheist:

1) Give birth.
2) Indocrinate your child. Keep it as insulated as possible from the outside world, and for god's sake make sure they're programmed before the age of 7.
3) Congrats?

I'm thinking the same thing. This is clearly a parody. Or else, it was written by an atheist. In any case, this article, if the OP's distillation of it is to be trusted, is far more likely to deconvert than convert.

I did give you the link, EP.  Instead of questioning my motives and intelligence, you could take a look yourself.  That is, if you find such things vaguely interesting.  I could be wrong, but I thought the article was legit. I also thought that all the warnings hidden in it, (I quoted a few), were interesting, and that someone here might like to see it.  That's why I posted it.  Sure, it could be a parody.  I don't think so, however.

[Excited Penguin]

I did give you the link, EP. 

I know you did. I'm trusting your own interpretation of the article, though, if I can count your OP as a whole as such.

 Instead of questioning my motives and intelligence, you could take a look yourself. 

See above.

That is, if you find such things vaguely interesting.  I could be wrong, but I thought the article was legit. I also thought that all the warnings hidden in it, (I quoted a few), were interesting, and that someone here might like to see it.  That's why I posted it.  Sure, it could be a parody.  I don't think so, however.

(Emphasis mine.)
I see no reason to think it's not. I'm just seriously considering the possibility than an actual atheist(this is a perfect instance where the word antitheist would be just right to use)  wrote the article - that doesn't speak for its legitimacy, merely for the author's intelligence(which would make it even more legitimate, if anything). I can't see a religious person with dubious reasons(trying to convert someone) inadvertently making so much sense on the topic.

[drfuzzy]

I did give you the link, EP. 

I know you did. I'm trusting your own interpretation of the article, though, if I can count your OP as a whole as such.

 Instead of questioning my motives and intelligence, you could take a look yourself. 

See above.

That is, if you find such things vaguely interesting.  I could be wrong, but I thought the article was legit. I also thought that all the warnings hidden in it, (I quoted a few), were interesting, and that someone here might like to see it.  That's why I posted it.  Sure, it could be a parody.  I don't think so, however.

(Emphasis mine.)
I see no reason to think it's not. I'm just seriously considering the possibility than an actual atheist(this is a perfect instance where the word antitheist would be just right to use)  wrote the article - that doesn't speak for its legitimacy, merely for the author's intelligence(which would make it even more legitimate, if anything). I can't see a religious person with dubious reasons(trying to convert someone) inadvertently making so much sense on the topic.

Perhaps, then, it was unwise of me to post only the excerpts from the article that I found interesting.  Most of it focused on how to choose the right setting, how to gain the atheist's trust, how to listen without being argumentative, how to invite the atheist to your church, etc.  These paragraphs I did not include, but do not seem to be the sort of thing an atheist would use . . . there was too much of it, it was too saccharine.  
I did not want to only post the link, this would guide some of our friends here to have to wade through all that crap . . .   
      If anyone has an opinion on how the OP should have been presented, I would be interested in suggestions.

[Excited Penguin]

Perhaps, then, it was unwise of me to post only the excerpts from the article that I found interesting.  Most of it focused on how to choose the right setting, how to gain the atheist's trust, how to listen without being argumentative, how to invite the atheist to your church, etc.  These paragraphs I did not include, but do not seem to be the sort of thing an atheist would use . . . there was too much of it, it was too saccharine.  
I did not want to only post the link, this would guide some of our friends here to have to wade through all that crap . . .   
      If anyone has an opinion on how the OP should have been presented, I would be interested in suggestions.

(emphasis added)
Perhaps adding a brief commentary about it as a whole, so that we can get your own take on it, would be the way to go. I try to do that whenever I post such threads which revolve around an article. As it is, it seems to me you just did that, if we're to take this last reply of yours and put it next to the OP.